Posted
by
timothy
on Sunday August 02, 2009 @04:02AM
from the words-fail-but-pictures-deliver dept.

metrix007 points out a story in the Sunday Express with more surveillance-camera madness from the UK, where the government now wants to place 20,000 CCTV cameras to monitor families ("the worst families in England") within their own homes, to make sure that "kids go to bed on time and eat healthy meals and the like. This is going too far, and hopefully will not pass. Where will it end?"

Dont worry people! This will be broadcasted on television too so you wont be missing anything. As you know, the tv show "Big Brother" viewer amount has been going down and advertisers want something fresh!

"There will soon be laws stating that minors must wear clothes inside the house..."

Fixed that for ya!

Seriously, that could readily be the upshot of such surveillance -- new laws requiring modest dress inside the home, lest your children be exposed to adult bodies, or worse, adults get to see children's bodies. Because after all, only someone who loves CP could possibly object! It's for the children, didn't you know!

1 : the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement2 : material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement3 : the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction

There are currently no laws stating that minors must wear clothes inside the house, so tell them not to. Then, the government records CP and they all burn at the stake!! It's flawless!!

Wouldn't that be nice!

No, what would actually happen is, the government would argue that the parents knew there were cameras in the house, so that by allowing their children to be nude in the house, they were complicit in the production of CP. Oh, I almost forgot! The kids knew it too, so they were also CP producers. So, they can pretty much throw the lot of them in jail, which is what they wanted in the first place, what with those being "the worst families in England." The government gets off clean because they can just argue that the purpose of the cameras wasn't to make CP, but was to rehabilitate those families, and part of rehabilitation is hiding their filthy, nasty, disgusting, sinful bodies at all times. So it's a double-strike against the families, and the government are heroes!

The one I'm waiting for isn't government sponsored. It's the biggest troll the world has ever known: A worm set up with a payload of hardcore CP, that sends emails to the FBI (truthfully!) alerting them that the host computer contains CP. I'm actually surprised this hasn't already been done several times now, let alone ever! You know, if your motive is mischief rather than money, why ruin mere data when you could ruin whole lives?

Social workers are leaving like rats from a sinking ship. Social care offices are horridly understaffed and what staff there are, are underskilled. The political culture since 1979 places a very low priority on any kind of social services, because everyone is assumed to be the sole architect of their own circumstances. This has led to the collapse of social mobility in this country, continuous under both Tory and Labour governments. It has also led to the systematic demonisation of the working class, an increased sense of alienation which would require more social services at the same time social services are being deliberately gutted in a conscious attempt to turn social democracy into social darwinism.

Reminds me of a story my father, who grew up in Britain in the 1930s and 1940s, told me about a government proposal to put baths in every home. One of the ministers objected to it because the poor would 'just use it to store coal.' Thankfully, that man wasn't listened to.

The problem is we don't pay nearly enough to social workers, teachers and other people working with children. Who wants to do a difficult job with a very demanding workload and with the potential for children to end up dead if you screw up and your career to be ruined, when you are unappreciated and underpaid?

I think there is a plan behind it. A project was founded to find out how much surveillance people will endure until seriously, unavoidable riots occur in a well-off society. I also think the reason the project was started so that people, after revolting against cuts into their privacy, have a better foundation and understanding for freedom and privacy.

However, the Brits didn't react according to the expectations of project coordinators. Unfortunately, no end date was agreed upon for the project.

Does anyone have anything original to say, or are we going to end up with 500 "OMG 1984!!!!1!1!1!1!" comments?

Dude, we're talking about surveillance cameras to make sure the kids go to bed in time. What did you expect?

Here's another application of cameras, which would've been unthinkable even 5 years ago. Pretty soon, you'll get used to it like you did with public cameras, and a bit later, you'll find it natural that everyone is monitored constantly for their own safety. Or you won't, and it will cost you dearly.

1. This is not something you can vote on, or discuss. Some goverment official just said "Hey, I have an idea, here's 400 million pounds, go implement it."2. Youngsters don't get into crime because they have a chaotic family life. They do it, because it's cool, they have too much free time, and they live in a neutered society. They simply have no outlet for violence, which is a pretty basic instinct if you think about it (ever seen a little boy who just starts

2. Youngsters don't get into crime because they have a chaotic family life. They do it, because it's cool, they have too much free time, and they live in a neutered society.

I think you'll find this is flat wrong. The number of children from stable families that get involved with crime is dwarfed by the number who do have a "chaotic" family life--or no family life at all. Experiencing neglect or abuse, or worse, going into the care system, dramatically increases your risk of juvenile and adult crime. Something like half of the kids in care will go to prison.

I will find cites if you think I'm wrong. Making stuff up, as I suspect you have, isn't a good way of diagnosing the causes of societies complex problems--yet it seems to be the most common method.

You essentially rephrased the "think of the children" argument. And it still isn't morally right.

On top of that, it probably won't work, are they going to put 20000 individual social workers in front of the screens to watch everything? As soon as those kids discover they get away with almost everything, it's back to square one.

The rest of the community, ie "society" doesn't have any rights. Only individuals have rights.

Every argument in favour of group rights is an argument against individual rights. It is always someone try to subvert an individuals rights in the name of "the greater good".

So while I support paying taxes to fund universal education, and health care, I don't pretend my supporting these taxes doesn't infringe on the rights of people who don't support these taxes. I am subverting individual rights to support my point of view. A very popular point of view where I live, but I don't pretend that imaginary "group rights" makes it all morally wonderful.

Yes, there are laws that are in place to make society better, and some of these laws infringe our individual rights. Society may decide to infringe basic rights for the "greater good", but don't pretend it ISN'T infringing individual rights. When you admit you are infringing individual rights I would hope you would be much more careful about infringing rights.

In this case I would say that installing these cameras goes way too far. It infringes basic rights to privacy, it involves a whole family, most of whose members are innocent of any crime. Group punishment is generally against the law. This is a case of a government wanting to show "it is doing something" and deciding camera's are a lot cheaper than hiring and paying social workers and police. They don't really expect this to help. They just want to be able to say to the voters, look, we tried.

In '97 the city of Antwerp started the "Witte Tornados" (White Tornadoes - Dutch isn't that hard) keeping the city clean and providing entry level jobs for people that would otherwise be probably unemployed and living of social benefits. About 150 of them.

That's 150 persons with increased self esteem.

That's 150 persons having a positive contribution instead of being a liability.

That's about 6000 hours of extra cleaning per month - and it has the added effect that it encourages people to not throw things on

Saying "it's 1984! 1984!" isn't useful.
Then why did we all read the book if not to use its name as a quick reminder of what should not ever be? It really is 1984 over there assuming that England's "National Enquirer" is being truthful. It's a bad result no matter what the reason is.

I live in Britain and I hate those white-trash types. "Chavs", we call them. Funded by state benefits, which become generous when you include the free housing that they live in, the chavs do no work other than producing children, who then live chaotic and deeply miserable lives. Sometimes these children appear in the media, normally when they've been murdered (Baby P) or kidnapped (Shannon Matthews) by their own families; or perhaps when they're a bit older and have entered the pet

Without a welfare state they still wouldn't work, or care for their kids, or any of that and the entire family would be even worse off stealing for food, clothes and everything else. What people like to think that it is the government fault however some people are just lazy and they still wouldn't do anything if they had to. The only way to make that group actually work is to force them to go to work. and I do mean Force as those types of people are so lazy that they can't hold a normal job on their own anyways.They won't show up on time, etc.

Just because they accept state welfare doesn't make them lazy, they are on welfare because they are lazy. Learn the difference. as a work chain gang will be the only way to get them to do anything on time.

Welfare keeps them for being even worse off. What is needed is a way to tie welfare into a real job paycheck so you can't get one with out the other. Though that too will create other problems.

I am currently being paid the equivalent of $14 an hour to sit on my butt doing nothing, and that unemployment benefit will last one-and-a-half years. Basically the State is "encouraging" me to be a slothful bum.

Fortunately I would rather be working which is why I'm still actively looking (plus it pays about three times more money), but it would be very very easy to just sit back, do nothing, and collect my $14/hour checks from my Democrat President and Congress.

So you give one (1) anecdotal example that says "welfare state does not create the problem" and from there draw the conclusion "welfare state does create the problem"? I think you just introduced a whole new class of logical fallacies.

I did read it more as a "welfare state (concept)" doesn't have to create the problem, but this welfare state (implementation) doesn't reduce the problem as intended.I always felt like their needs to be multiple different quotas. IE welfare females that put-out to welfare males = bad. welfare females should have to either babysit, or other productive work like putting out to nerds, or other socialy challenged males that need their social training = good.

How is his argument any more flawed than the unsubstantiated speculation that he is replying to? Maybe the problem doesn't come from the first people forced on the dole, but I would think that there is a much greater likelyhood that those who grew up with their family getting provided for by the government would learn to expect it.

I disagree with your first point. Without the welfare state, they would have to work, because the alternative would be worse for them. If they couldn't afford beer, Sky, fags and takeaway, they would do something about it. Feel the power of capitalism, the only effective system for redistribution of wealth:).

But I agree with your second point. Welfare won't ever be scrapped in Britain, but it does need reform. Unless you are a highly skilled worker, you actually take a cut in income when you move from benefits to a job! This is partly because British people who live below the poverty line still pay taxes when they work. Economically speaking, it actually isn't worth getting a job.

Reason Magazine calculated the total benefits an unemployed U.S. person receives (food stamps, free housing, et cetera) is equivalent to an $11 an hour job, with some states like California going as high as $20 an hour.

They argued since the average person is not stupid, they recognize that they are better-off remaining unemployed rather than take a "cut in pay" working for $7 at Walmart or McDonalds.

I disagree with your first point. Without the welfare state, they would have to work, because the alternative would be worse for them. If they couldn't afford beer, Sky, fags and takeaway, they would do something about it. Feel the power of capitalism, the only effective system for redistribution of wealth:).

Over here (Uruguay), welfare hasn't gotten to the point where it can afford someone what you describe.

You know what happens? They do "work", in a sense, but not the kind of work we'd want them to have: families have chariots (litterally, with horses pulling them), and go scrounging around the trash cans. They are now supposedly authorized by the government (after some tense protests), there are an estimate of 50.000 of them (Image: http://www.180.com.uy/tmp/thumbs/a93c0188583eb74b25d3814529e88b28.jpg [180.com.uy] ), they live by classifying the refuse, trying to separate metals and cardboard and plastics.

And those are the ones that do work. There's also another kind, who send their children to board buses and ask for charity, or to ask for money at the street lights (basically every significant street light has its beggars). Children are beaten if they don't fill the "quota" set by their parents. And they do get enough money, more than what's usual for a day's works at minimum wage.

Other people "work" as "car minders" (?).. they stay at the block where you park, and ask for money in return for "caring" for your car (and god help you if you don't pay them..). Don't think that just by paying them they won't steal if they have the opportunity (I've personally seen the one in my block steal, and now I'm in a kind of cold war with him, and can't park in my block anymore), and they're no insurance against having your car stolen either.

In all, the "refuse classifiers" (the guys on chariots) at least try to do something. Though the municipal government complains that they make the trash cleaning job a lot worse, because they leave a mess behind after they go through the trash cans.

Wow, you honestly could be describing South Africa with that post. Same problem here with those on welfare in exactly that same situation. The major problem, is that we all live in global culture that expects handouts. Its really sad, but I don't expect it to change any time soon.
Its is getting so ridicules that I have been here stories of people intentionally getting HIV and then not taken medication so that there CDC count drops and then qualifying for additional welfare because they now have AIDS.

Numerous studies have shown that kids that grow up in families "on the dole" tend to grow up to be adults that collect "the dole" much more than other families. The most popular theory for this is a lack of good role models. If you grow up with parents who do not work, do not try to teach you the value of work, who are not well educated, and do not teach their children the value of education, often, not always, the child grows up thinking that going on "the dole" is just the way things are. Work is for som

The ironic thing is the original definition of Proletariat or "Prole" in 1984 in Latin were people who offered no benefit to the state other than raising children. The Proles didn't have Big Brother in their homes, and Winston longed to live like them. Somebody should tell the UK they're not doing it right:-)

Wow a real Tory alive and living in England. Are you too young to remember the eighties?

It's nice that you "remind" people that the Welfare state created this problem. And ironic given the 1984-slant on this story. I'm sure that as someone who lives in Britain you are well aware that the Sunday Express is a gutter-rag on par with the National Enquirer and so this story probably has no basis in reality.

When you "remind" people about how the Welfare State created chavs do you also remind them that we have never had an underclass at any point in history before the 1940s? Do you also point out that the breakdown in social cohesion that we attribute to chavs living in sink-hole estates has never before been associated with poverty?

Finally I hope that you "remember" to point out that the Welfare State "created" this problem by fixing other related problems - such as injury or loss of work forcing entire families out to starve to death in the streets.

My point is not that the chavs should be starving in the streets. My point is that they should help themselves.

For example. We know that it feels good to send aid to help starving guys in Africa. But it's even better to help them get their economy started so that they don't need any more aid. Same with the chavs. By sending them aid, we actively discourage them from getting their lives together.

We should be doing something other than giving them money. They're misspending it, and now we are apparently saying that we need to check up on them constantly, 1984-style. It would be better to not give them any money in the first place.

The story may be bollocks, but it's believable bollocks from New Labour given the other things they've done. Incidentally, I'm not a Tory, the Tories are left-wing "progressives" now and basically agree with New Labour on every matter. Also, you should be aware that the scale of the chav problem certainly changes in response to welfare payments. When it doesn't make economic sense to work, hey presto, people stop working.

There will always be a problem with non-productive members of society. The answer to that problem is much more nuanced.

Your argument along the lines of - "first they came fore the Jews", is nonsensical. The definition of a state revolves around the responsibility it has to it's subjects. The state is always responsible for at least some sort of welfare to its people, whether it is in the form of keeping order, providing infrastructure and emergency response or maintaining national security.

"white-trash" - I really hate that phrase. To me the adjective implies that this is a notable kind of trash. Whereas "black trash" - well that goes without saying doesn't it? Not that this is a reflection upon the person that says it. (as it is uttered by all hues), just a sad reflection of our perceptions of society. Some of which might be justified, but much not.

Scary though it it, the government thinks what it's doing is best for the people - which is a marked difference from the novel.

Cromwell's dictatorship

Robespierre's terror in the French revolution (Committee of Public Safety - how ironic in this context)

the Spanish Inquisition

the Crusades

Hitler's "Final Solution"

Communism

were all motivated by "doing the best for (their own) people".

Orwell fought in the Spanish civil war with the republicans against the fascists. In his time there were dictators like Mussolini, Franco, Stalin, Hitler,... so it is easy to understand where the inspiration and fear came from.

You know, we Americans really ought to give the guys in the UK credit. I mean, every time we seem to sink farther and farther into a police state, with crap like warrant-less wiretapping ( gotta love that hope and change!) and other Big Brother style crap, along comes the UK to prove "hey, it could always be worse!"

So I personally would like to extend the folks of the UK a hearty golf clap, for proving that no matter how bad of a corporate ass kissing, police state loving pile of douchebags we end up with writing our laws that we will always have the UK proving that nobody beats them for CC loving, neighbor snooping, big government bullshit. Thanks UK!/golf clap/

Look; I know that this is a touchy subject, but after working for 5 years (in Australia - things aren't quite as bad here as they are in the UK or the US) as a teacher with kids from the rough side of town, I can tell you there are some seriously fscked up families out there. That warrant some kind of intervention, yet too often the departments responsible for this sort of thing are too fearful of being seen as some Orwellian over-lords. Often it comes down to an issue of human rights, particularly with children involved. Why bother having laws against child abuse if you don't police them? Democracy isn't "do whatever the hell you want" - it involves responsibilities to our fellow people, and people who don't want to undertake those responsibilities need to be handled in some way. Putting cameras in their homes might be better than sending them to jail.

I'm not for a surveillance sort of a state, but when everyone complains of governments becoming "nanny states", I see a lot of people that need a nanny.

I agree with you; but my response is that if the parents actually need 24 hour supervision to look after their kids properly, then the kids need to be taken away. I can't really see how that's a worse outcome than growing up in such a messed up family.

According to the governments documentation on these schemes (which makes no mention of cameras, by the way) the 24 hour supervision is used when the parents are indeed one step away from having the kids taken away from them. Having the kids taken is the stick used to try and improve their behavior.

Yes, there's many times when the kids only chance is to get them into a normal home environment. If the society can come up with enough good foster parents, or ways to find more stable relatives and get them to take in the grandkids, nephews or whatever, this is frequently the best option. Unfortunately, taking the existing kids away doesn't stop people from having new kids. That would most probably require compulsory sterilization in most cases. There we are, several slips farther down the slippery slope m

Exactly. You have to understand how violent England has become in the last 25 years, and how many completely worthless people exist. I went to a baseball game in Pittsburgh a few years ago, and was amused to see about 10 police from when I left where I was staying, getting to the stadium, and back home again. You'd probably see a group of more than 10 police at the the nearest tube station when there's a football game in the UK. I'm concerned about my liberties in terms of net access, email, right to take photos etc, but if there's some sort of clamp down on the families producing criminals and lowlife who are just going to spend their entire lives living on benefits provided by my tax; stealing my car; making *every* town in the UK a loud, dangourous, smashed up place between 10pm and 2am (when pubs close) then I'm 100% behind it.

Do you have any facts and figures to back up the notion that England has become a lot more violent in the last 25 years?

See, I think that this is mostly utter bullshit spewed out by right-wing (or just moronic) redtops, and echoed mindlessly by the BBC, to give the government excuses to intrude evermore into people's privacy. Ever think that maybe there are more police in the UK because the people think they need them when in fact they don't? How many of those police were actively involved in quelling violence?

This is your basic statecraft Judo; Tension is created to excuse the use of Gestapo muscle. In this case the tension is created through a mult-generational application of terrible education and terrible living standards so that people become frustrated fit to bursting. The youthful rage you're talking about is an honest and healthy reaction to slavery. The solution isn't MORE pressure.

But people have been successfully dumbed down to the point where this is no longer as

I take it you only read the inflammatory article from the Express (for US readers: Think Fox News with more breasts and less journalistic integrity), rather than anything actually containing facts. You can find the government's description of the scheme [respect.gov.uk] online. Notice that nothing in this is compulsory. It is an option presented to families as an alternative to being prosecuted. If they think they have done nothing to warrant it, or that a potential custodial sentence would be a better choice, then they are welcome to take that option. Note also that the 24-hour intervention is described as the most extreme case here (while it's the only part of the scheme described in the Express article, with the assumption that it will be applied to all of the 20,000 families).

Not compulsory? Please re-read your own sentence. Anybody who would willingly agree to this 'non-compulsory' treatment is somebody under serious compulsion. Like the fear of prosecution.

Well, if you don't want the fear of prosecution, then don't set fire to your neighbours' cars and don't encourage your children to do the same. This is not compulsory. It is something that you can choose as an alternative to having to face the real consequences of your actions. It seems compulsory only because it is a lighter option than the sanctions that are already in place for criminal behaviour.

These aren't in private houses. They are in publically owned houses (or at least publically paid for houses). The UK has a very "good" benefits system - so "good" that it is the aspiration of thousands of teenage girls to get pregnant as early as possible such that they can get their own flat and benefits so they don't have to work. The biggest problem is we are now entering at least the second generation of this kind of thinking/upbringing, so the teens don't know any better. It isn't obvious what the solution is either.

I'm not entirely sure there's a problem. Apparently the reason to give pregnant girls their own flats was to prevent babies from being raised homeless. Mission accomplished.

If by "problem" you mean that kids are now making this their goal...why is that a surprise?

It's like opening a soup kitchen and being surprised there's more people now than last year. Well if you're going to give away free food, you should expect it to become more popular. It's not the soup kitchen's job to put itself out of business. It's somebody else's job to provide a superior alternative to welfare.

For example, some good employment opportunities. Something that makes being on welfare seem crappy in comparison.

I still say putting cameras in their homes is a very bad 'solution'. Putting them in prison WOULD be better.

They always say you shouldn't hit a child for punishment because it teaches them that violence is a reasonable solution to relatively minor problems. I agree, and the government putting CCTV in these people's homes teaches a lot of impressionable people that CCTV in homes is a reasonable solution to antisocial behaviour, or other misdemeanours. It is not. Put them in prison if they're that bad, or

Okay, you're confusing two issues. One is cameras in general and you, like many Americans, seem to have read the article in one of our trashy tabloids giving an estimate about the number of cameras in Britiain and failed to read the retraction printed a few weeks later where they admitted their methodology was entirely nonsense[1].

The second issue is putting cameras in the homes of people who are basically criminals. Look at the numbers involved. They are doing this in 20,000 homes out of 25 million. That works out to 0.08% of the population. If you add this to the percentage of the population in prison, you get 0.228%. Compare that to the 0.756% in prison in the USA. Would you rather that we just put the parents in prison and the offspring in foster care or orphanages?

[1] They took a busy commercial London street and counted the number of CCTV cameras along a mile of it, including (as the majority were) privately-owned cameras covering businesses. They then multiplied this number by the number of miles of road in the UK and printed this in their headline. I've been in the USA quite a few times, and seen a lot more CCTV cameras in US cities than I do back home.

For the love of jebus, ignore the Daily/Sunday Express just as much as the Daily/Sunday Mail. They are terrible, borderline-racist, reactionary publications with a fixation on Big Brother (Orwell, not the terribe reality show) and 'foreign types stealing our jobs'.

There's a site [mailwatch.co.uk] dedicated to the terrible nature of these publications, which is well worth a read, if only for a giggle.

From the phrasing of that post, I'll have a stab and say you're quite left wing, and happily buy into the Labour spin.

First off, there are sites saying how bad the news is on any given source (including things like the BBC and so on). This does not mean the site that decries the news sources is any more reliable themselves.

Secondly, throwing in the word "racist" and expecting any argument to be over just doesn't work so much these days. Quite a few studies have shown that everybody discriminates (on just about every factor you can think of). Including the papers you read (which presumably you think are ok, because they say what you want to hear, and you don't feel like hunting down a site which says how bad the news quality is in it).

Finally, and most importantly, show me the disputation that proves this isn't actually happening. You'll be hard pressed, because it is actually in place at the moment, merely being expanded upon.

Oddly, however, I've known families like the ones being watched. They're the kind that'll send their kids round to burn out your car because you told their dog off for savaging your baby. Playing the club music at full volume until 4am every night and generally making the neighbourhood a really bad place to be in (because, of course, it's a free country and they can do anything they want any time they want, nobody's allowed to tell them any different, otherwise they don't have any 'respeck', and thus deserve a knife in the gut).I'm stuck in the conundrum of absolutely hating surveillance with a vengeance, and thinking what the hell is anybody meant to do with people who act like that?You just know that as soon as any measure is put in place, it'll widen in scope to creep up to the point it encompasses everyone, and then what do you do?

Much as my 'knee jerk' reaction is to say that this is awful, being surveilance, it's one that leaves me feeling edgy, but it's worth looking at. And keeping an eye on very closely to watch its creep.

Like fixing anything badly broken in a system, sometimes you have to use extraordinary measure to fix a dire problem. Monsters we are, lest monsters we become.

The citation you need is here [respect.gov.uk]. The program provides three tiers, and at the top tier the family is moved into a 'core residential unit' which is monitored 24 hours a day. This is an option which is intended to try to keep families together; if they choose to opt out then the children can be taken into care (and the parents potentially tried for any of the forms of antisocial behaviour they've been engaged in, including child abuse). If you read the Express article, you can just about see how it relates to this scheme, but you'd have to take a lot of drugs for them to be seen as the same.

Without the CCTVs, it's not really that different from homes for the elderly.

Except it's "non-negociable2 meaning "forced on families" and highly invasive to their lifes. I'd challenge it in the european courts for breach of human rights in a heartbeat. Thankfully, the united kingdom is part of an organization that does recognize those.

Where did you get the "non-negociable" [sic] from? Read the sanctions section of the government document [respect.gov.uk]. If you don't want the intervention then they CSA and police will proceed through the usual channels (meaning the children will be taken into care and the adults will most-likely be put in prison for criminal damage / child abuse).

Well, there are families which constitute the dregs of society, same as you'd get anywhere else. Think "mother had her first child at 15, now has four children with five different fathers, drinks like a fish, has never really paid any attention to what her kids eat, what they do of an evening or how they behave and if they get in trouble is more likely to rush to their defence than to make any effort to find out if they really have done something wrong".

These families are very much in the minority, though they probably cause upwards of 70% of the trouble in any particularly troubled area.

It's these that such schemes are targeting - of course you've got the "slippery slope" argument and there may be some truth to that - I don't think anyone in the public sector in general from the prime minister right down to the lowliest PCSO has ever voluntarily relinquished some of their power, and this gives some people an awful lot of power. But making an effort to understand the causes and treat them rather than the symptom would be far too much like hard work for the majority of ministers.

That they are even talking about this is nefarious indeed. What we the people should be doing is insisting on our legislators and lawmakers being CCTV'd 24/7 along with phones. (With exceptions for national security.)

Imagine how much corruption would be uncovered this way. If the representatives choose to conduct business elsewhere it can be assumed they are guilty of something or at least worthy of voting out.

First, they came for the paedophiles; and I didn't speak, for I was not a paedophile.Then, they came for the hoodies; and I didn't speak, for I was not a hoodie.Then, they came for the problem families; and I didn't speak, for I was not a problem family.Then, they came for me. But I was in Canada by then (please?!)

I spoke to one of my British immigrant friends about the big brother attitude in England, saying I understand it's financially motivated in the U.S., but I couldn't see what motivated it there. He said a large portion of the population has absolutely no sense of personal responsibility and wants some one else (the government) to handle that for them. Of course this isn't everyone.

Let's look at history and see how British citizens who didn't agree with the crown acted and what came of it:

Scotland - William Wallace. They fought a good fight but ultimately failed. They made their point and over time, since people allowed the fight to die with him, it didn't matter.

Quakers, Puritans, other settlers. - Fled to the New World to escape the mainland oppression only to experience oppression by remote control. They eventually rebelled, established independence and we now have the United States. Some time later Canada decided to break free also - a little more peacefully and they still have the Queen on their money. I wouldn't.

It's time for the English citizens to have a civil war. They've already screwed up, they've let their government take their guns away, so it's going to be difficult, but I'm sure they can manage. If enough of the populace proves they're willing to go to war with rakes and shovels it may just get enough attention to prove to the government they're serious and the government may start listening. I'm sure it would only take a few government officials dieing during riots and stealth assassination missions before they agree to consider that 1984 wasn't meant as an instruction manual.

It's very important that the people declare war and actually send over a document declaring such, if they don't it's no better than gang terrorism.

They've already screwed up, they've let their government take their guns away

We never had guns in the first place. When handguns were finally outlawed, it affected only a few thousand people out of sixty-odd million. As far as I know the mainland UK has never had a culture of individual gun ownership.

We never had guns in the first place. When handguns were finally outlawed, it affected only a few thousand people out of sixty-odd million. As far as I know the mainland UK has never had a culture of individual gun ownership.

I don't know, what do you think of this article:http://www.thesconce.com/ukreport.html [thesconce.com]
In a material sense, Britain today has much less of a "gun culture" than at any time in its recent history. A century ago, the possession and carrying of firearms was perfectly normal here. Firearms were sold without licence in gunshops and ironmongers in virtually every town in the country, and grand department stores such as Selfridge's even offered customers an in-house range. The market was not just for sporting gu

Wrong on so many levels. Unless it's a troll in which case, hey you win.
As has been pointed out elsewhere, most perceptions of WIlliam Wallace in popular culture are driven by that awful Mel Gibson film which could not have been more innacurate if it had a plasticene Grommit alongside Wallace. I can't speak for Quakers, but certainly a lot of settlers like the Puritans were intent on setting up their own theocracy in the new world as well as escaping persecution at home. Did Canada break free? I don't recall a Canadian War of Independence? No, it was done piecemeal and largely peacefully. I don't care if they have the Queen on their notes; at least no one pretends the British Crown is infallible like some of people in the US who believe the Founding Fathers were but a little lower than the angels. As to Civil War we've had ours thank you very much and it didn't solve much. Meanwhile the USA is full of far too many people who think that if you talk like Alan Rickman you must be the bad guy. Give me a break. We don't brainwash our kids every morning in school by making them worship a flag either.
Polemic? Yes, of course. I've visited the USA many times and have found most people to be regular guys. I don't form my opinions of the USA based on the National Enquirer and one chap who emigrated to England from the States who I met in the pub. I suggest you take a broader look around. The UK is full of idiots of all political shades and colours just like any other nation.
I don't want live in a country where you can't feel safe unless you have a gun. Fine. You do? Fine, your call. Just get a grip.

I know your all going to compare it to 1984, say this is a big brother police state, but to be honest, if you live on an area affected by youths who make you terrified to go outside, who intimidate you if you do, who will not hesitate to key your car, smash in it's windows or even set it on fire, who make it the norm to set of fireworks in the street and even post them through letter boxes, then you wouldn't be moaning about their human rights.

El Gordo is off on his hols and the underlings feel they can let out silly proposals like this. Then the ministers get to keep their TV hours up by spending copious amounts of time saying that this is only a proposal knowing full well that it will never happen.The 'Comics', newspaper like the Daily Wail and Express need to fill their copy and stories like this are exactly the sort of thing to fill the 'silly season'.

Besides if by some legal mangling, the cameras were ever to be installed, they would be:-(within minutes)1) Stolen and sold down the Pub for Drink,Fags or Drugs.2) Vandalised3) The house sublet to a nice family ensuring nothing for the monitors to see.

Anyway, NuLab will get a real tanking in the next election and the Tories will have all their attention on getting the country out of the financial sesspit that Gordon 'prudence' Broone has got us into since 1997.

Finally, as this is in a clear breach of the European Human Rights Directive I think many of the wailers here should get a life.

If a family fails so much at parenting that they have to be supervised by the government to do their job, I really don't think that it would change anything. Sure, it might prevent the parents from beating the crap out of their children, but if they do that, taking away the children is a better idea anyways, or do you really expect them to turn into loving, good-citizen parents just because Big Brother is watching? I'm not as opposed to surveillance as most of the/. crowd, but this...they aren't just compl

We just have the comfort of knowing that we live on the edges of ridiculously huge tracts of unpopulated, un-cleared wilderness bigger than most European countries into which we can run off and live, (and conduct guerrilla warfare from), should things get really sticky. Our brand of political asshole remains vaguely aware of this fact. I think that's partly why there seems to be a campaign afoot to ensure that everybody turns into a fat, lazy, ignorant, TV-watching, video-gaming idiot. They run slower, have fewer hours in the day to think, and in the end, simply put up with a lot more bullshit.

A hunter isn't scared of the same things everybody else is, because s/he knows that should society crumble, survival isn't a matter of how many digits are recorded after one's name in the local bank machine.

Public spaces should feel safe, welcoming and vibrant, and shopping areas and parades, city centres, parks and green spaces should be free from intimidation, harassment and anti-social behaviour.
It is vital that we reclaim our streets for our communities. Begging - one of the most visible signs of a problem street culture - anti-social street drinking or prostitution can hold back the economic and social life of a community, as well as being intimidating and threatening to